Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-ATTACHMENT B (MARCH 24, 2015 PLANNING COMM. REPORT)ATTACHMENT B MARCH 24, 2015 AGENDA REPORT rITM #1 MEETING DATE: MARCH 24, 2015 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: CONTINUED CODE AMENDMENT 2015 001 (ORDINANCE NO. 1454) — SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE CULTURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No 4277, recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Draft Ordinance No 1454, amending Article 9 Chapter 2 of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to provide new standards for second residential units in the Cultural Resource (CR) District and prohibit new accessory buildings used as guest quarters in the CR District; APPROVAL AUTHORITY TCC Section 9295f authorizes the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council on proposed Zoning Code amendments, Planning Commiss on Report March 24, 2015 Code Amendment 2015 001 Page 2 BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Proposed Code Amendment Proposed Code Amendment 2015-001 would provide new s�Wdards for second residential units in the CR District, allow new second residential units on any residentially zoned lot in the CR District regardless of lot size, and prohibit new accessory buildings used as guest quarters in the CR District. The standards for second residential units in all other areas of the City are not proposed to be amended, and all second residential units in the City would continue to be allowed ministerially without discretionary review or a public hearing. Planning Commission Action on February 24, 2015 Code Amendment 20115-001 was properly noticed for a February 24, 2015, public hearing, at which time the Planning Commission opened the public hearing, staff provided a presentation, and several members of the public provided testimony (see Attachments A — February 24, 2015 Planning Commission Report and B — Draft Minutes of February 24. 2015, Plannfng Comm ssion meeting). The Planning Commission (with the exception of Chair Thompson who recused himself) deliberated the matter and considered three motions. Commissioner Altowaiji made a motion to reject the proposed ordinance and to direct staff to prepare a revised ordinance exempting 12,000 square foot lots and to analyze additional square footage requirements. This first motion failed due to a lack of a second to the motion. Chair Pro Tem Lumbard then moved to adopt Resolution No. 4277 and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Kozak with Commissionems Altowaiji and Smith opposed, so the motion failed 2-2-1. It was then moved by Commissioner Kozak to continue the item to March 24, 2015, to provide adequate time for staff to provide an analysis based on alternative proposals from Commissioners Altowaiji and Smith. This third motion was seconded by Commissioner Altowaiji and passed 3-1-1, with Chair Pro Tem Lumbard opposed. ANALYSIS Alternative Proposals for Second Residential Units in the CR District At the February 24, 2015, Planning Commission meeting, Commiss'oners Smith and Altowaiji proposed alternatives to the staff recommendation. It is staff's understanding that Commissioner Smith concurred with staff's recommendation that the maximum floor area for a second residential unit on a lot under 12,000 square feet in the CR District be limited to 600 square feet in size, but proposed allowing lots 12,000 square feet and larger to continue to be able to have larger second residential units, based on the existing TGC provision that allows the size of the second residential unit to be up to 10'0 of the area of the lot. Planning Commiss,on Report March 24 2015 Code Amendment 2015-001 Page 3 Similarly, it is staff's understanding that Commissioner Altowaiji proposed that all lots under 12,000 square feet in the CR District be allowed to have a second residential unit of up to 800 square feet, which could accommodate two (2), or perhaps, three (3) bedrooms (see Sample Floor Plans) and that the maximum floor area remain the same (10'o of the area of the lot) for the larger lots. Commissioner Altowaiji also proposed that only one (1) covered parking space be required for a second residential unit of up to 800 square feet, regardless of lot size; and lots that are 12,000 square feet or more could choose to take advantage of either the existing or proposed standards. This proposal could preclude future additions to the second residential unit on a lot of 12,000 square feet or larger, because it may not be possible to accommodate a second required parking space on the lot after the second residential unit has been built and is later proposed to be enlarged. LU Z U I- j 111DROOM 79 LIVING ROOM BATM (570 BEDROOM Sample Floor Plans - Second Residential Unit (approx. 800 square feet) �I ............... '� .2 ■■■I ONE ME ME ON ■No MEMM OMEN .�■■■■li EMEMMENNIZIEN MEMEEMMEMM! Sample Floor Plans - Second Residential Unit (approx. 800 square feet) Plann'ng Commission Report Man.h 24, 2015 Code Amendment 2015 001 Page 4, Sample Floor Plan — Second Residential Unit (approx, 1,200 squa�e fee.) The standards for, and consequences of, second residential un s in the CR Zoning D'strict as proposed by staff Commissioner Altowaiji and Commission Smith are summarized in the following table The table also includes the approximate possible number of second residential units, bed,00ms, residents students, and vehicles, and demand for park acreage that could result from each proposal. The fol owng assump ons were made 1) Number of Bedrooms The number of possib e bedr oms was calculated by assumFng one (1) bedroom for ea h second residential un t of up to 600 square feet, three (3) bedrooms for each second res;dential un of up to 800 square feet an three (3) bedrooms (or more) for ea h second residential un t on a lo. of at least 12 000 square feet in size in the CR Di t is Planning Commission Report March 24, X015 Code Amendment 2015 001 Page 5 ® Number of Residents It was assumed that each second residential unit would accommodate one (1) person per bedroom plus one (1) additional person, which is consistent with the California Health and Safety Code standard and the Department of Housing and Urban Developments overcrowding threshold. 0 Number of Vehcles A total of two (2) vehicles was assumed for each second residential unit wit two (2) or more bedrooms, and one (1) vehicle was assumed for each second residential unit with one (1) bedroom (or for a stu&o unit). 0 Number of Students To calculate the number of students that are anticipated to reside in the second residential units. a student generation factor of 0.2 students per dwelling unit was used, which is based on the s udent generation factors utilized by the Tustin Unified School District in determining the need for additional school facilities. 0 Park Demand The anticipated demand for additional park a:-,�reage was based on the City's parkland dedication rate of three (3) acres of parkland per one thousand (1,000) persons, which is specified in Tustin City Code Section 9331 d. It should be noted that the numbers of second residential units, bedrooms, residents students, and vehicles, and park acreage demand in the following table are based on every single family lot in the CR District having a second residential unit, During the past thirty (30) years, two (2) second residential units have been approved in the CR District One (1) is a residence consisting of 1,450 square feet that was built in 1988. The other second residential unit was approved in 2014, but has not been bu 1t. It is proposed to be 700 square feet in size, with two (2) garage parking spaces, but the property owner has expressed a desire to not construct the second garage parking space. Planning Commission Repirt March 24, 2015 Code Amendment 2015-001 Page 6 CR District Second Residential Unit Proposals Max. 2"J Unit Floor 50% of primary single-family 50% of primary single - (lot under 12.000 dwelling, not to exceed 600 800 square feet family dwelling, not to square feet) square feet exceed 600 square feet 2" Unit Floor Area 50% of primary single-family (lot 12,000 square dwelling, not to exceed 600 10% of lot area 10°i° of lot area feet or larger) square feet Second Residential Units 194 194 194 Bedrooms 194 (1 bedroom x 194 lots) 582 (3 bedrooms x 194 lots) 284 (1 bedroom x 149 lots (3 bedrooms x 45 lots) Residents (includes 388 776 478 students) 11 % increase 22% increase 13% increase Students _- 40 40 40 Park acreage demand 1.2 194 2.3 388 ^ 1.4 Vehicles 239 Minimum off-street parking One car garage or carport One car garage or carport One car garage or carport (lot under 12,000 space space space square feet Two car garage if larger than Minimum off-street 800 square feet. parking One c ar garaye o carport Two car garage (lot 12,000 square spa, a One car garage or carport feet or larger) space if 800 square feet or smaller Standards varies among: • Lots that are less than 12,000 sf. • Lots that are larger than 12,000 sf with 800 sf. unit' Applicability of Standards would be consistent • Lots that are larger than Unknown/unclear standards throughout CR District 12,000 with more than 800 from the meeting sf. unit' 'These lots could take advantage of existing and proposed standards Planning Commission Report March 24, 2015 Code Arnendrnnt 2015 001 Page 7 State Law related to Second Residential Units On September 29, 2002, the Governor approved Assembly Bill 1866, which amended Government Code Section 658522, and requires applications for second residential units to be considered ministerial without discretionary review or hearing. The purpose of the requirement is to facilitate the provision of affordable housing throughout California. Government Code Section 65852.2 allows local agencies� to impose standards on second units that include. but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review. maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed on the California Register of Historic Places, to provide that second units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the second unit is located; and, to designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where second units may be permitted. Government Code Section 65852.2 allows local agencies to regulate the size of the second residential unit, provided that at least an efficiency unit can be constructed in compliance with local development standards. As described in the Health and Safety Code, an efficiency unit must be a minimum of 150 square feet in size. Although agencies may allow second residential units that are as large as, or larger than, primary residential units, it is important to note that larger second residential units would tend to be less affordable than smaller second residential units, thereby defeating the purpose of Assembly Bill No. 1866. If the des'Te of the Planning Commission is to allow multiple residences on a lot, then it may be more appropriate to upzone the single family residential area of the CR District, or a portion thereof, from Single Family Residential (131) to Duplex Residential (112) or Multiple Family Residential (R3). This action, however, would be contrary to the primary goal of the CR District which is to protect the charm and chara-Iter of Old Town and the predominantly single family nature of the area. Planning Commlss;on Role Related to Historic and Cultural Resources One of the duties of the Plann,ng Commission is to advise the City Council on all matters relating to historic and c0urai resources. The majority of these resources are P anrnng Commiss on Report Mar:.h 24, 2015 Code Amendment 2015 001 Page S located within the CR District. One purpose of the CR District is to assure that new construction in the District is compatible with the character of the District. Although new and additional residential development may be appropriate on properties that are zoned for multiple family residential development, additional density on single family residential properties has the potential to adversely change the character of the single family neighborhoods within the CR District. Therefore, in considering Code Amendment 2015-001, the Planning Commission should consider their role related to historic and cultural resources and strive to protect the character of the CR District, while also providing housing opportunities within Old Town Impacts and Implications Based on Commissioners' Proposals The proposed Code Amendment would have impacts and implications. The following are the potentially negative consequences of additional second residential units in the CR District. • More residences/residents in Old Town. • Greater residential density on R1 properties in Old Town. More parked vehicles and traffic in Old Town. • Less street parking for visitors guests in Old Town. • Greater demand on local parks and schools. • Change in character from mostly single family to multiple famlly in Old Town,. Should the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a revised resolution and revised draft ordinance to relilect Commissioner Altowaiji's proposal or Commissioner Smith's proposal, the impacts and implications listed above would be intensified. For example, if second residential units were constructed and occupied on all eligible properties in the CR District under Commissioner Altowaiji`s proposal, it is estimated that the population within the CR District could increase by about 776 residents. According to the U.S. Census Bureau there were 3,599 people living in the greater Old Town area (Census Tract 755 05) in 2010. Therefore, an increase of 776 residents would be approximately a twenty-two (22) percent increase in population in that area. The potential population increase under Commissioner Smith's proposal would be approximately thirteen (13) percent. In comparison, the potential population increase based on staff's recommendation would be about eleven (11) percent. These potential increases could have impacts on public services, such as schools, parks and recreation facilities, police, the library, etc. The staff recommendation to allow second residential units of up to 600 square feet on all R1 properties within the CR District is based on the unique historic development pattern and character of Oid Town and the size, shape, and configuration of many of the properties and res€dentes wahin the CR District. Should the Commission wish to allow second residential units on all R1 properties within the CR District and allow larger Planning Commission Report March 24 2015 Code Amendment 2015-001 Page 9 second residential units with multiple bedrooms on larger lots within the CR District, along with larger parking accommodations, the unique character of Old Town, and particularly its single family neighborhood, could be compromised. In the alternative, if the Commission does not consider the Old Town CR District to be sufficiently unique to warrant the proposed Code Amendment, there may be justification to apply the same standards for second residential units within all single family residential zones within the city. Therefore, the Commission should consider whether it would be appropriate or desirable for the proposed standards to be applied citywide and whether to direct staff to conduct a citywide cumulative analysis of second residential units and the potential population increases and related impacts to traffic, parking, parks, and schools if second residential units were to be allowed on every single family resident. lal property in the city. According to the California Department of Finance, there were 9,453 single family detached residences out of a total of 26,967 residences in Tustin as of January 1, 2014. Allowing second residential units on every single family property in the city has not been studed and could result in over 9,000 additional residences, which could significantly impact the city and its residents. Staff would recommend that this kind of analysis could have General Plan implications and would warrant further in-depth analysis. Code Amendment Procedure (TCC 9295) Pursuant to Tustin City Code 9295 after the close of public hearing or continuation thereof, the Planning Commission shall make a report of its findings and its recommendation with respect to the proposed amendment: The recommendations of the Planning Commission shall be adopted by a majority of the voting members of the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission cannot reach a consensus on the proposed amendment; alternatively, the Planning Commission could provide a report via a Resolution to the City Council indicating the reasons why a consensus cannot be achieved. The City Council could then consider the proposed amendment or in the alternative, should the City Council wish to consider the other options proposed, the City Council could direct staff to prepare the General Plan Amendment, Environmental Impact Report, Notices, and other analyses that may be necessary. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed Code Amendment is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as found in Public Planning Commission Report March 24, 2015 Code Amendment 2015-001 Page 10 Resources Code Section 21080 17. However, if the citywide approach is desired, an environmental impact report may be required. CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW The City Attorney has reviewed the content and form of Code Amendment 2015.001 (Draft Ordinance No. 1454) ,tt Reekstin Principal Planner Elizabeth A Binsack Director of Community Development Attachments - A February 24, 2015 Planning Commission Report B. Draft February 24, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes C. Planning Commission Resolution No 4277 D. Draft Ordinance No 1454 (Code Amendment 2015-001) E. Existing Tustin City Code Sections 9223 and 9252j with redlined changes